Yet another new school. In California. Imagine that.

[rph3664]

It's not racist to hope that an individual who has taken the time to go through a four or three year professional program has the ability to communicate properly. Many schools have a list of missions and goals, most if not all state that they want to create graduates with professional character. Proper communication skills, such as speaking the local language, falls into this category.

Furthermore, it's within the interest of all individuals who want to pursue the career of pharmacy that education standards not fall. Even if that means we start, or return, to judging an individual by their full capabilities, such as speaking English correctly.

What drhenPharmD stated is not racist, all that was said was that there are some asian women who speak English marginally, not all asian women. I find it really shocking that a lot of individuals think that it is taboo to judge a person on their language proficiency. We are in a field of professionals, it's just another trait in a long list that individuals, including customers may look at.

I was the one who made the original statement - that whenever I called a Florida pharmacy for a transfer, I would almost always get an Asian woman who spoke very poor English. My last employer had a similar problem with nurses, especially on the night shift - their first language was usually Tagalog and they spoke so little English, it really was a patient safety issue.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lilly15]

Ok I'll chime in here, thanks A4M for the referral, I appreciate the opportunity to assist in this member's care.

1) ACPE is recognized by the DOE as an accrediting body; as such, it's under strict DOE scrutiny and cannot arbitrarily decide what schools can open or not. That's a violation of Sherman Antitrust. Even if the intentions are good (such as recognizing a surplus), it's considered monopolistic.

It could work in China or Cuba, but not the US.

2) As for ACPE increasing standards, this is possible; however, it would apply to EVERYONE. Most recent example is ACPE mandating things called "IPPE/IPE's" or the fact that X% of the curriculum must be experiential (vs. didactic).

The consequence can actually be perverse in that a new school would have an easier time meeting new requirements vs older schools. A new school can write its curriculum from the ground up with the new requirements in mind, whereas an old school has to retool everything with 4 full-sized classes already in the pipeline.

It's like buying a new car with new safety features vs. fixing/upgrading an older model car while it's going 65mph on the freeway.

In my example above, some older schools just dumped the IPPE/IPE requirement onto students and the onus was on them to find sites and complete the requirement, or stuck them in 2-3 week blocks over a traditional vacation block to complete it. Imagine the lack of flexibility for 3-year accelerated programs to do that.

Have any suggestions on increasing the demand? It looks like pharmacy school is the going to be the next law school. Even after all that has been written about law schools, lawyers decreasing demand, and the surplus, new schools are still opening. Here in Tennessee, a new law school is opening for Fall 2011. Isn't there 198 law schools already?
I see pharmacy that way. Where there is money to be made, schools are going to do it. There's no way to stop them as everyone has so kindly pointed out to me. YAY for the future of pharmacy.

 

[confettiflyer]

their first language was usually Tagalog and they spoke so little English, it really was a patient safety issue.

historical point here, the official language of instruction in public schools in the philippines is English (former US territory), so while you may be correct in that the 1st language at home is Tagalog, the majority of their instruction will have been in english.

their inability to have others clearly understand them is a personal failing.

 

[confettiflyer]

I appreciate the assist. It *should* put things to rest a bit. Of course, I'm not terribly optimistic as this "Email ACPE and tell them to FIX THINGS" line of discussion seems more persistent than HSV. It's only a matter of time before a new poster pops up telling us to "do it! It can't hurt!" and accusing those who try to explain the facts of not knowing anything, having our heads in the sand or fiddling while the profession burns.

Maybe we need a "Confettiflyer explains the Sherman Act" sticky that we can all link to from our sigs?

i'm waiting for the next "Medicaid recipients blow it on cocaine and escalades!" thread.

and no need for sigs, let them use the search function....until i feel charitable and decide to type something new. On the upside, sometimes I figure something new out or come up with a better explanation the 2nd-3rd time around.

 

[confettiflyer]

confetti, I never realized you are a genius. Great post.

you're much too kind

Have any suggestions on increasing the demand?

Other people will be able to answer this better (current practitioners, residents...KARM? spacecowgirl? Z?), but I'll post my opinion anyway:

I think a good way is to get involved while in school and try to participate in outcomes research or look at protocols within health systems and find ways to improve care/save money.

Bottom line: find proof that pharmacists improve care, core measures as defined by CMS and JC, and can save the hospital money. it'll justify your position and just might justify expansion.

Physicians are big allies too...they tend to help grease things along when they appreciate/depend on pharmacy for certain consults/services (even "downstairs" things like product management especially with shortages).

Oh and be good at what you do. A surplus can actually help here in that hospitals & other institutions can skip the weakest candidates and hire better pharmacists without overbidding for them.

 

[drhenPharmD]

So... West Coast University has found a dean.

Poached one of our faculty.

 

[confettiflyer]

So... West Coast University has found a dean.

Poached one of our faculty.

Well, upside is... they have ACICS accreditation, meaning they have access to federal financial aid unlike those poor saps at CNCP taking out usurious private loans.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Well, upside is... they have ACICS accreditation, meaning they have access to federal financial aid unlike those poor saps at CNCP taking out usurious private loans.

Stop trolling. Everyone knows that ACPE accreditation is required for federal loans!

 

[UES Girl]

Stop trolling. Everyone knows that ACPE accreditation is required for federal loans!

If I tell you that I love you and think you are awesome, can I have one of those rocket scientists icons ? Pleaaaaaaaaase

 

[powertoold]

It's interesting that in the last several decades, there have been several pharmacist shortages, but schools weren't opening up like they are today.

There must have been some structural / economic change in the way schools are formed and funded. The number of new schools got ridiculous a long time ago, and now it's just scary to think about the number of new pharmacists that will be looking for jobs in the next few years

 

[BrightLight]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2068085,00.html

A nice article by Time depicts how the private pro-profit education industry is preying on the desperate. It makes me think of all the newly opened pharmacy programs and the students who believe in the glamorous futures promised by them.

 

[Lilly15]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2068085,00.html

A nice article by Time depicts how the private pro-profit education industry is preying on the desperate. It makes me think of all the newly opened pharmacy programs and the students who believe in the glamorous futures promised by them.

Exactly. I think our only hope is to educate the poor souls who believe the pharmacy schools when they say there is still a shortage and pharmacists will always be in great demand. I was surprised how many people in pharmacy school believe there is still a shortage of pharmacists. Can you believe that?

 

[StevePerry]

This is why my belief is that we should be finding new things for pharmacists to do (increasing demand).

Attempting to limit the supply is both futile and short-sighted. You're better off emailing people at CMS to get stricter on safety/clinical measures that are within the scope of pharmacy.

Look at it this way, if you increase pharmacist demand by ONE pharmacist in each state of the union, that's almost the equivalent of shutting down one new school's graduating class per year.

The best part is, you have the law and outcomes research on your side.

Excellent posts as always... I don't know if I fully agree with your premise of not attempting to regulate supply though (or maybe I do, but just for different reasons).

My first argument: Dentists.
My second argument: Physicians.

I acknowledge and agree with you that this is most likely a futile battle as there is just far too much corporate money stacked against pharmacists making any progress with tighter control on the supply side. The only real solution to limit supply would be mandatory residencies... BUT the Wags/CVS's of the world would lobby to create a retail residency at practically every store making this effort in vain. Without control over the number of residency programs available (like in medicine), pharmacists would be sold out -- again. I guess what I am getting at is ACPE / NABP / State Boards / etc. COULD step up to the plate if they wanted to and keep the pharmacist supply regulated (most notably by making pharmacy a minimum pathway of 8+ years instead of 5 years and only establishing X amount of mandatory residencies), but face it -- there is just way too much corporate influence fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

 

[Praziquantel86]

Excellent posts as always... I don't know if I fully agree with your premise of not attempting to regulate supply though (or maybe I do, but just for different reasons).

My first argument: Dentists.
My second argument: Physicians.

I acknowledge and agree with you that this is most likely a futile battle as there is just far too much corporate money stacked against pharmacists making any progress with tighter control on the supply side. The only real solution to limit supply would be mandatory residencies... BUT the Wags/CVS's of the world would lobby to create a retail residency at practically every store making this effort in vain. Without control over the number of residency programs available (like in medicine), pharmacists would be sold out -- again. I guess what I am getting at is ACPE / NABP / State Boards / etc. COULD step up to the plate if they wanted to and keep the pharmacist supply regulated (most notably by making pharmacy a minimum pathway of 8+ years instead of 5 years and only establishing X amount of mandatory residencies), but face it -- there is just way too much corporate influence fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

Physicians have been traditionally limited by, as you alluded to, the mandatory residency slots. The last few years have seen the addition of a few new allopathic and osteopathic schools, at least three that I can think of off the top of my head. It'll be interesting to see if graduates ever expand past the residency slots, but I don't think that'll happen.

Dental schools require an immense start-up cost, which I think is what has limited them from proliferating. I would like to know if there's any other reason for it, because they seem like an absolute gold mine for the schools once they start going.

Minimum 8 years is the way I think pharmacy should go, for a number of reasons. Not least of all, we would be able to make significant shadowing/work experience a de facto requirement for admissions. I think it's ridiculous that so many people are committing themselves to pharmacy yet having no genuine experience in the field until their P4 years (and whether that counts as real experience is up for debate).

I was able to use the 6 year pathway and I'm glad I did. After getting involved with numerous organizations and school committees, I can see why it isn't necessarily a good thing that that's allowed to continue.

 

[steveysmith54]

This is why my belief is that we should be finding new things for pharmacists to do (increasing demand).

Attempting to limit the supply is both futile and short-sighted. You're better off emailing people at CMS to get stricter on safety/clinical measures that are within the scope of pharmacy.

Look at it this way, if you increase pharmacist demand by ONE pharmacist in each state of the union, that's almost the equivalent of shutting down one new school's graduating class per year.

The best part is, you have the law and outcomes research on your side.

So a new school generally accepts about 70-80 students and we have 50 states in the union, we have 4 new schools w/ plans to open in 2012 just in CA. Unforutnately, the numbers don't add up.

Only way to save the profession of pharmacy is to control supply. Pharmacists were thriving when the supply was low bc they had the leverage to ask for more technician hours among other things.

 

[rxlea]

I appreciate the assist. It *should* put things to rest a bit. Of course, I'm not terribly optimistic as this "Email ACPE and tell them to FIX THINGS" line of discussion seems more persistent than HSV. It's only a matter of time before a new poster pops up telling us to "do it! It can't hurt!" and accusing those who try to explain the facts of not knowing anything, having our heads in the sand or fiddling while the profession burns.

Maybe we need a "Confettiflyer explains the Sherman Act" sticky that we can all link to from our sigs?

Acyclovir resistant HSV at that...

 

[30Percent]

Are these new pharmacy schools going to be 3 year programs?

I know the Central California SOP will be a 3 year program.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Are these new pharmacy schools going to be 3 year programs?

Some are, some aren't.

 

[30Percent]

I was looking at AUHS SOP website and there's no information about their curriculum at all. They mention they will start their first class in Fall 2012. The application cycle for that opens in June 2011. They better update their website soon.

 

[BrightLight]

This is a Central California SOP?!

I cannot understand the reason for starting this school. On its website, the school claims that it is a non-profit institution. If the school is not after the money of the potential pre-pharmers, why open a pharmacy school when the market is already saturated? The website also says that it wants to relieve the pharmacist shortage in San Joaquin Valley.... This doesn't make sense, because just because students attend a pharmacy school in that region doesn't mean they will stay there to practice as pharmacists. What is the founder, Michael W. Lynch (an MD, not PhD), thinking?

Can someone provide the background for this school?

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Pharmacy programs make money for schools, whether they are for-profit or non-profit. News flash: the vast majority of pharmacy schools in the US are part of non-profit institutions, including most of the new schools. Just because an institution is non-profit, it doesn't mean they don't want to generate revenue.

 

[Doctor Rock]

Pharmacy programs make money for schools, whether they are for-profit or non-profit. News flash: the vast majority of pharmacy schools in the US are part of non-profit institutions, including most of the new schools. Just because an institution is non-profit, it doesn't mean they don't want to generate revenue.

They want to make sure there is enough influx of funds to keep their jobs and pensions nice and cushy.

 

[owlegrad]

Minimum 8 years is the way I think pharmacy should go, for a number of reasons. Not least of all, we would be able to make significant shadowing/work experience a de facto requirement for admissions. I think it's ridiculous that so many people are committing themselves to pharmacy yet having no genuine experience in the field until their P4 years (and whether that counts as real experience is up for debate).

I was able to use the 6 year pathway and I'm glad I did. After getting involved with numerous organizations and school committees, I can see why it isn't necessarily a good thing that that's allowed to continue.

So basically you want to close the door behind you? You did it and your glad you did, but it's not good for other people?

And expanding the curriculum to 8 years is not going to guarantee more pharmacy involvement from students anyway, unless I am misunderstanding your post. I would be much more favorable to a required residency rather than 2 additional years of undergrad. More undergrad is not going to help anyone. A year or two of residency would be much more beneficial - even if residencies were used as a source of cheap labor for the chains, that is still preferable to an additional two years of undergrad, IMO.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I think stuff to encourage people to get to know and understand the profession before applying would be good.

I mean, we have people on this forum who are halfway through pharmacy school and don't know SQUAT about pharmacy. All they know is that they "hate retail" but don't know anything about alternate practice sites. It frustrates me.

 

[crazybob]

I think stuff to encourage people to get to know and understand the profession before applying would be good.

I mean, we have people on this forum who are halfway through pharmacy school and don't know SQUAT about pharmacy. All they know is that they "hate retail" but don't know anything about alternate practice sites. It frustrates me.

The thing I've heard about retail is that if you get along with your coworkers well enough, you'll be ok with your job. You also have to try to take your time and not take on more than you can handle.

So basically you want to close the door behind you? You did it and your glad you did, but it's not good for other people?

And expanding the curriculum to 8 years is not going to guarantee more pharmacy involvement from students anyway, unless I am misunderstanding your post. I would be much more favorable to a required residency rather than 2 additional years of undergrad. More undergrad is not going to help anyone. A year or two of residency would be much more beneficial - even if residencies were used as a source of cheap labor for the chains, that is still preferable to an additional two years of undergrad, IMO.

Maybe the 8 year curriculum could have 2 years of rotations or something like that. Or making some rotations a bit longer to give people more experience.

 

[Praziquantel86]

So basically you want to close the door behind you? You did it and your glad you did, but it's not good for other people?

And expanding the curriculum to 8 years is not going to guarantee more pharmacy involvement from students anyway, unless I am misunderstanding your post. I would be much more favorable to a required residency rather than 2 additional years of undergrad. More undergrad is not going to help anyone. A year or two of residency would be much more beneficial - even if residencies were used as a source of cheap labor for the chains, that is still preferable to an additional two years of undergrad, IMO.

However bad that sounds, yes. I don't think that enough people develop the personal and professional maturity to understand what they're getting themselves into after 2 years of undergrad. Some certainly do get this during pharmacy school and I count myself as one of them. I don't think it should be left to chance though.

Medical, dental, veterinary, PA, and a few other medical fields all implicitly, if not explicitly, require substantial shadowing and/or experience in the field prior to applying to school. Pharmacy does not, and I think one of the reasons is the shortened pre-professional period. My friends who pursued other routes didn't begin their shadowing time until midway through their sophomore year, which simply isn't possible in a 6-year pharmacy curriculum.

Mandatory residency is a different topic. For things like board-certification, I think a residency should be mandatory (with exceptions for grandfathering) and that is the way the profession is moving. Mandatory residency to work in retail (notice: this is specifically traditional retail, not the new hybrid am-care models). It would be Mikey's doomsday scenario of shifting cost onto the trainee with no additional benefit.

Residencies serve a purpose right now that is incredibly useful to those who pursue them for the right reasons, but for the rest, they're not worth it. There is no justifiable reason that a residency would ever become mandatory in order to become licensed as a pharmacist.

 

[owlegrad]

However bad that sounds, yes. I don't think that enough people develop the personal and professional maturity to understand what they're getting themselves into after 2 years of undergrad. Some certainly do get this during pharmacy school and I count myself as one of them. I don't think it should be left to chance though.

Medical, dental, veterinary, PA, and a few other medical fields all implicitly, if not explicitly, require substantial shadowing and/or experience in the field prior to applying to school. Pharmacy does not, and I think one of the reasons is the shortened pre-professional period. My friends who pursued other routes didn't begin their shadowing time until midway through their sophomore year, which simply isn't possible in a 6-year pharmacy curriculum.

Mandatory residency is a different topic. For things like board-certification, I think a residency should be mandatory (with exceptions for grandfathering) and that is the way the profession is moving. Mandatory residency to work in retail (notice: this is specifically traditional retail, not the new hybrid am-care models). It would be Mikey's doomsday scenario of shifting cost onto the trainee with no additional benefit.

Residencies serve a purpose right now that is incredibly useful to those who pursue them for the right reasons, but for the rest, they're not worth it. There is no justifiable reason that a residency would ever become mandatory in order to become licensed as a pharmacist.

Everything you say is valid. But I just want to know, how is requiring two more years of undergrad more valuable than requiring a residency? I can only speak for myself, but I would much prefer getting paid as well as valuable experience rather than two more years of classes full of material that I will never use.

I don't think requiring two more years is necessarily going to mean candidates with more pharmacy experience (they seem like separate issues to me) - although California already requires 4 years undergrad, right? I would be curious to know if their students get more pharmacy experience before pharmacy school and most importantly, are their graduates better than other states?

 

[All4MyDaughter]

However bad that sounds, yes. I don't think that enough people develop the personal and professional maturity to understand what they're getting themselves into after 2 years of undergrad. Some certainly do get this during pharmacy school and I count myself as one of them. I don't think it should be left to chance though.

Medical, dental, veterinary, PA, and a few other medical fields all implicitly, if not explicitly, require substantial shadowing and/or experience in the field prior to applying to school. Pharmacy does not, and I think one of the reasons is the shortened pre-professional period. My friends who pursued other routes didn't begin their shadowing time until midway through their sophomore year, which simply isn't possible in a 6-year pharmacy curriculum.

I pretty much agree. I don't think students (SOME students anyway) know what they are getting themselves into. And don't find out until it's too late to do anything about it. For this reason I am not a fan of direct-from-high-school pharmacy school admissions. I think it's a relic and should probably be phased out.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Everything you say is valid. But I just want to know, how is requiring two more years of undergrad more valuable than requiring a residency? I can only speak for myself, but I would much prefer getting paid as well as valuable experience rather than two more years of classes full of material that I will never use.

I don't think requiring two more years is necessarily going to mean candidates with more pharmacy experience (they seem like separate issues to me) - although California already requires 4 years undergrad, right? I would be curious to know if their students get more pharmacy experience before pharmacy school and most importantly, are their graduates better than other states?

I totally see your point, and I agree that 2 years of residency would be far more valuable than 2 additional mandatory years of undergrad. But when you already have a substantial number (majority?) of incoming pharmacy students with 4 year degrees, do we really want it to take 10 years for most people to get a PharmD? Maybe schools could have mandatory extra IPPEs the summer before P1 year for students without pharmacy experience? I just feel like 2 extra years of school is overkill.

 

[owlegrad]

I totally see your point, and I agree that 2 years of residency would be far more valuable than 2 additional mandatory years of undergrad. But when you already have a substantial number (majority?) of incoming pharmacy students with 4 year degrees, do we really want it to take 10 years for most people to get a PharmD? Maybe schools could have mandatory extra IPPEs the summer before P1 year for students without pharmacy experience? I just feel like 2 extra years of school is overkill.

Oh, just to be clear I am not in favor of mandatory residencies or expanding undergrad requirements.

I think that is an excellent idea, although IPPE's varies too greatly in quality, IMO. Just simply requiring more pharmacy experience for admissions seems like enough to me. If that is not practical and schools need to rely on IPPE's, so be it.

 

[crazybob]

I totally see your point, and I agree that 2 years of residency would be far more valuable than 2 additional mandatory years of undergrad. But when you already have a substantial number (majority?) of incoming pharmacy students with 4 year degrees, do we really want it to take 10 years for most people to get a PharmD? Maybe schools could have mandatory extra IPPEs the summer before P1 year for students without pharmacy experience? I just feel like 2 extra years of school is overkill.

IMO, Many students will be better prepared for pharmacy school if everyone is required to have a degree and/or go to 4 years of undergrad.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Oh, just to be clear I am not in favor of mandatory residencies or expanding undergrad requirements.

I think that is an excellent idea, although IPPE's varies too greatly in quality, IMO. Just simply requiring more pharmacy experience for admissions seems like enough to me. If that is not practical and schools need to rely on IPPE's, so be it.

I want to know more about the variability in IPPE. At my school they do a 4 week IPPE community rotation and a 4 week IPPE hospital rotation. They are basically about learning tech duties. I think they are good (but clearly not enough!) for those with no pharmacy experience.

 

[Praziquantel86]

Everything you say is valid. But I just want to know, how is requiring two more years of undergrad more valuable than requiring a residency? I can only speak for myself, but I would much prefer getting paid as well as valuable experience rather than two more years of classes full of material that I will never use.

I don't think requiring two more years is necessarily going to mean candidates with more pharmacy experience (they seem like separate issues to me) - although California already requires 4 years undergrad, right? I would be curious to know if their students get more pharmacy experience before pharmacy school and most importantly, are their graduates better than other states?

The added experience is useful in helping you to determine if it really is pharmacy that you want to pursue. That ship will have long since sailed by the time residency rolls around.

They are separate issues for sure, but they're still related. I don't think it's possible to get adequate exposure within the first two years of college, therefore requiring additional time. I would be curious about the California thing as well.

What's honestly most surprising about this is the amount of ad-coms that let lack of experience slide. Shouldn't that be the #1 thing they're worried about?

 

[Praziquantel86]

Oh, just to be clear I am not in favor of mandatory residencies or expanding undergrad requirements.

I think that is an excellent idea, although IPPE's varies too greatly in quality, IMO. Just simply requiring more pharmacy experience for admissions seems like enough to me. If that is not practical and schools need to rely on IPPE's, so be it.

The rotational requirement is way to variable too have any sort of meaningful ability to generate experience, both between schools and between students. UBs format, for example, is almost completely opposite that of LECOM and St. John Fisher, both right down I-90. Within UB, an outpatient rotation is anything from a leukemia infusion clinic to Rite-Aid. I know other schools are similar.

Plus, by the time you get to IPPEs, you're accepted and enrolled. It really wouldn't help with the "is this for me?" issue.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

What's honestly most surprising about this is the amount of ad-coms that let lack of experience slide. Shouldn't that be the #1 thing they're worried about?

This is astounding to me too. There are people I know on this forum and IRL who I cannot believe gained admission to pharmacy school. And I'm not talking about people who have low grades or PCATs. I'm talking about totally clueless about pharmacy, no life skills, never set foot in a pharmacy, probably just picked pharmacy out of a hat types.

 

[confettiflyer]

So a new school generally accepts about 70-80 students and we have 50 states in the union, we have 4 new schools w/ plans to open in 2012 just in CA. Unforutnately, the numbers don't add up.

Only way to save the profession of pharmacy is to control supply. Pharmacists were thriving when the supply was low bc they had the leverage to ask for more technician hours among other things.

My math is correct, your math is not. 1 school = ~70 new graduates. increasing pharm demand by 1 per state = 50. My statement is correct when I say increasing by 1 almost alleviates one school's graduates for a year.

Reread the original post.

 

[crazybob]

This is astounding to me too. There are people I know on this forum and IRL who I cannot believe gained admission to pharmacy school. And I'm not talking about people who have low grades or PCATs. I'm talking about totally clueless about pharmacy, no life skills, never set foot in a pharmacy, probably just picked pharmacy out of a hat types.

Or started pharmacy school just because applying to med school didn't work out. I know people who are like that.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Oh, just to be clear I am not in favor of mandatory residencies or expanding undergrad requirements.

I think that is an excellent idea, although IPPE's varies too greatly in quality, IMO. Just simply requiring more pharmacy experience for admissions seems like enough to me. If that is not practical and schools need to rely on IPPE's, so be it.

That's a good idea, but do you start taking 3.0 students with experience over 4.0 students without? The difference isn't typically going to be that extreme, but is it more important to make sure students can handle the academic load of pharmacy school, or to make sure they know what they're getting themselves into? I think right now they're just relying on the interview to determine the latter.

IMO, Many students will be better prepared for pharmacy school if everyone is required to have a degree and/or go to 4 years of undergrad.

Agreed. But is it really necessary?

I want to know more about the variability in IPPE. At my school they do a 4 week IPPE community rotation and a 4 week IPPE hospital rotation. They are basically about learning tech duties. I think they are good (but clearly not enough!) for those with no pharmacy experience.

That's why I think a summer semester spent gaining pharmacy experience and learning the basics might be a decent idea. That would also give students an opportunity to back out if they realize they hate pharmacy.

 

[crazybob]

Agreed. But is it really necessary?

Not for everyone, but how would you test their level of maturity? How would you assess their studying habits and ability to learn subjects they have never encountered in their lives?

 

[R2pharmD2]

Not for everyone, but how would you test their level of maturity? How would you assess their studying habits and ability to learn subjects they have never encountered in their lives?

Isn't that what the pre-reqs are for? That's why some people can get in after 2 years, and others take an additional year or two. If your first 2 years are a bit shaky, completing a degree provides more evidence that you can handle it. But if someone finishes the first 2 years with a high GPA, good PCAT, etc., do they really need 2 more years of good grades to prove they can handle it?

 

[owlegrad]

That's a good idea, but do you start taking 3.0 students with experience over 4.0 students without?

That is a question for an adcom, but I think the experience should simply be a requirement, period. In other words, both the 3.0 and the 4.0 student would have at least some minimum experience, instead of the current system of academics being king (arguably).

 

[R2pharmD2]

That is a question for an adcom, but I think the experience should simply be a requirement, period. In other words, both the 3.0 and the 4.0 student would have at least some minimum experience, instead of the current system of academics being king (arguably).

That's easy for us of 2 jobs to say laugh but there are lots of people who have trouble even finding a place to volunteer. I don't know how much people even get out of volunteering, really, because they're often fairly restricted as far as what they can do. Shadowing is probably even worse. I never did either, so I can't say for sure. (Not that they're useless, they're certainly better than nothing.)

 

[owlegrad]

That's easy for us of 2 jobs to say laugh but there are lots of people who have trouble even finding a place to volunteer. I don't know how much people even get out of volunteering, really, because they're often fairly restricted as far as what they can do. Shadowing is probably even worse. I never did either, so I can't say for sure. (Not that they're useless, they're certainly better than nothing.)

True, true.

 

[crazybob]

That's easy for us of 2 jobs to say laugh but there are lots of people who have trouble even finding a place to volunteer. I don't know how much people even get out of volunteering, really, because they're often fairly restricted as far as what they can do. Shadowing is probably even worse. I never did either, so I can't say for sure. (Not that they're useless, they're certainly better than nothing.)

When I did some shadowing, I watched a pharmacist counsel a patient, but I was standing 15 feet away from the pharmacist. I got a glimpse of what the computer system looked like, and I also got to see what prescriptions are supposed to look like. I didn't really hear them talk that much about medications.

They would get more out of it by working as a tech. I remember once when I talked to a retail pharmacist about shadowing, and the manager said that she would have to train me like they train new employees before letting me shadow. In that case, you might as well work as a tech.

 

[Praziquantel86]

That's easy for us of 2 jobs to say laugh but there are lots of people who have trouble even finding a place to volunteer. I don't know how much people even get out of volunteering, really, because they're often fairly restricted as far as what they can do. Shadowing is probably even worse. I never did either, so I can't say for sure. (Not that they're useless, they're certainly better than nothing.)

Isn't this what we're looking for? A way to limit applicants that doesn't violate the Sherman Antitrust Act? I'm all for it.

PA schools require substantial work experience in health fields before they'll even look at an application. Hell, even CRNA schools have a work experience requriement (granted, that's about the only work experience they ever get...). Why don't we? I see absolutely no harm that can come from requiring a person committing themselves to pharmacy to actually have a clue about what they're doing.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Isn't this what we're looking for? A way to limit applicants that doesn't violate the Sherman Antitrust Act? I'm all for it.

PA schools require substantial work experience in health fields before they'll even look at an application. Hell, even CRNA schools have a work experience requriement (granted, that's about the only work experience they ever get...). Why don't we? I see absolutely no harm that can come from requiring a person committing themselves to pharmacy to actually have a clue about what they're doing.

That's a great point. Is there anyway to actually enforce such a requirement though? Don't individual schools establish their admission requirements?

 

[Praziquantel86]

That's a great point. Is there anyway to actually enforce such a requirement though? Don't individual schools establish their admission requirements?

ACPE would be able to make it a requirement (I think, would have to check on that one). I don't think existing schools would be able to say no without looking like hypocrites.

 

[R2pharmD2]

ACPE would be able to make it a requirement (I think, would have to check on that one). I don't think existing schools would be able to say no without looking like hypocrites.

I don't fully understand how the accreditation/reaccreditation process works, but if they could force schools to institute a minimum level of experience for applicants, I could get behind that. It makes sense, from a market perspective and a student-benefit perspective, although 4.0 students without experience would certainly cry foul. I think you'd probably have to make it a pretty serious requirement, like a year or 2 of tech work, to limit the applicant pool enough to prevent new schools from opening/existing schools from expanding, but that's just a guess.

 

[BrightLight]

An advantage of requiring tech experience before one can be admitted to pharmacy school is worth mentioning. Right now, I notice that those retail chains (at least where I work) tend to give hiring preference to tech candidates who can speak Spanish. If tech experience becomes a pharm school admission requirement and if pre-pharmers want to compete for a tech position in this saturated market, they would have the incentive to learn Spanish in order to make themselves competitive. As a result, our profession will have increased number of Spanish-speaking pharmacists, who will be able to provide drug counseling to the rapidly-expanding Latino population that often do not get adequate counseling due to language barrier. No?

 

[confettiflyer]

I don't fully understand how the accreditation/reaccreditation process works, but if they could force schools to institute a minimum level of experience for applicants, I could get behind that. It makes sense, from a market perspective and a student-benefit perspective, although 4.0 students without experience would certainly cry foul. I think you'd probably have to make it a pretty serious requirement, like a year or 2 of tech work, to limit the applicant pool enough to prevent new schools from opening/existing schools from expanding, but that's just a guess.

I'm going to argue against you here, I think you're overvaluing pharmacy experience gained before admittance to a pharmacy school (ie tech work, etc...). In general, I think pharmacy experience without concurrent education only takes you so far, and that a competent student who gains his/her first pharmacy job (retail, hospital, etc...) after P1 will quickly catch up.

What a mandatory "pharmacy experience" requirement will do will cause potential students to shift away from other academically worthy activities like independent research or other social activities that, I feel, have a higher value than spending a year or two in a retail pharmacy.

I felt like those with pharm experience before school were ahead of the curve at the *start* of school, but the gap quickly closed as those with other experiences (other employment, greek involvement as an undergrad, research, etc...) started getting similar experiences.

Of course the easy solution would be to have a candidate who had ALL of the above experiences, but some students don't have the luxury.

Some of the best pharmacy students/pharmacists I know had ZERO in-house experience going into school, but were outstanding academics and leaders in undergrad-only opportunities (aforementioned independent research & greek, plus student government, health organizations, etc...)